Sponsored by
VGoodiez 420EDC
  • Welcome to VaporAsylum! Please take a moment to read our RULES and introduce yourself here.
  • Need help navigating the forum? Find out how to use our features here.
  • Did you know we have lots of smilies for you to use?

Law Canada MJ News

Cannabis companies facing proposed class-action lawsuit over alleged mislabelling

Some major cannabis companies in Canada are facing a multi-million dollar proposed class-action lawsuit over allegations the potency of their products is “drastically different” than advertised.

The statement of claim filed in Calgary on Tuesday accuses the companies of failing to properly label their products and alleges negligence on their part.

The plaintiffs are seeking a $500-million judgment — “or such other amount as may be proven at trial” — along with punitive damages of $5 million from each of the defendants.

The companies named in the statement, which include Tilray, Cronos and Aurora Cannabis, as well as some other cannabis industry players and subsidiaries, have yet to provide comment to Global News regarding the allegations.

According to the claim, plaintiff Lisa Marie Langevin bought a Tilray cannabis oil product in Calgary in February but didn’t feel the intended effects after trying it on several occasions.

Shaun Mesher, a colleague of the plaintiff’s friend who has a PhD in biochemistry, sent the product to a lab for potency analysis.

The testing showed the cannabis oil had just 46 per cent of the advertised Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content, the claim states, though a second product sample from the same lot came in at 79 per cent.

Mesher then sent more cannabis product samples produced by several different companies to the lab.

The claim referenced six samples found to contain THC levels that varied greatly from what the package indicated. Two were stronger than advertised though the rest were weaker. The THC content ranged from 54 per cent to 119 per cent of the label value.

One product tested had a cannabidiol (CBD) content that was roughly half (52 per cent) of what was advertised, the claim states.

None of the products in question had been subject to Health Canada recalls, according to the statement of claim.

“Two-thirds of our samples were outside of what Health Canada recommends as the variability limit in the content of THC or CBD in those bottles,” Mesher said.

“And then of that two-thirds, over half was greater than 25 per cent difference in the labelling.”

The claim states that there is some U.S. research showing that THC can leech out into plastic containers, and that may be a factor in the potency discrepancy in Canada.
 
Cannabis retailers call for change in B.C.’s legal sales regime
Online purchase and delivery monopoly exploited by black market in COVID-19 pandemic

A national cannabis retailers group has persuaded the B.C. government to make legal stores safer, and now it wants to level the playing field with black market marijuana sellers who can deliver to their customers.

The Association of Canadian Cannabis Retailers (ACCRES) first called in January for a change to B.C. regulation requiring opaque or covered windows for retailers, similar to federal tobacco legislation designed to keep any glimpse of products or brands from those under 19. The move demonstrates the law-enforcement focus of federal and provincial marijuana regimes, with unintended consequences that may increase risk of crime.

“By forcing retailers to opaque their windows, the government of B.C. has created a situation where retailers are at elevated risk of assault and robbery due to the limited lines of sight, and law enforcement’s ability to respond is equally curtailed,” ACCRES said in a March submission to the provinces’ Cannabis Regulation Branch.

The group cited assault and robbery attempts at member stores during the first year of legalization, and recommendations of the Victoria and Vancouver police as they shut down illegal dispensaries for non-compliance with licences and rules. B.C.’s “community safety unit” was created to help police bring order to the recreational market after federal legalization in October 2018.

Attorney General David Eby announced the window covering change on June 18, retaining strict rules against any product or brand viewing, inside and outside stores. Health Canada’s tobacco-style packaging and brand restrictions are another factor in illegal sellers holding onto the majority of the Canadian recreational market, particularly in B.C.

Public health restrictions on movement in the COVID-19 pandemic have magnified another unintended consequence. With police enforcement focused on unlicensed retail stores, and a strict provincial monopoly for legal online ordering and delivery, an industry association says the traditional phone-and-drop-off method of street drug sales is appealing to more people.

In a letter to B.C. Public Safety Minister Mike Farnworth, ACCRES argues that and online age verification and sales tracking solutions are already available, and trained store staff can provide no-contact deliveries as well as the online monopoly using Canada Post.

“Direct delivery is currently available to the residents of Saskatchewan and Ontario via provincially licensed retailers,” the letter states. “ACCRES proposes that these existing regulations be adapted for the B.C. sector, as they represent the latest evolution of best practices during the COVID-19 health emergency.”

With Premier John Horgan’s declared goal of making B.C. “craft cannabis” the new craft beer, the B.C. government is examining “farm-to-gate” sales as it has with other agricultural products as well as .

One producer already planning to sell from the farm is Sugar Cane Cannabis, a project of the Williams Lake First Nation. On reserve land inside the city limits, the project isn’t subject to municipal licensing and the jurisdiction of the province is unclear as Indigenous self-government expands in B.C.
 
Hamilton's cannabis gamble proves hazy at best as many promises are still unfulfilled

In 2018, Hamilton police officers were playing a game of whack-a-mole as they attempted to shut down an estimated 85 illegal pot dispensaries.

After councillors agreed in a far-from unanimous 10-6 vote in January 2019 to allow legal private cannabis stores to operate within its boundaries, there were only a handful of illegal pot stores in the city with most of them closed up, including a persistently troublesome one in Stoney Creek on King Street.

It was one of the few benefits Hamilton has seen after it made the momentous decision to essentially legalize cannabis retail operations within its borders.

To entice municipalities to accept legal pot dispensaries, the provincial government made it easier for local officials to crack down on illegal outlets. The maximum fine for operating one has been increased to $250,000, plus up to two years in prison for a first conviction; there is a maximum fine of $1 million for corporations that sell or distribute illegal cannabis.

Yet councillors can still find themselves stymied by the cannabis industry. Case in point is the proposal by Cannabis Roll Inc. to create a cannabis retail outlet at 11 Hatton Dr. near Fiddler’s Green Road and Highway 403 that had previously housed a Your Choice Variety store almost in the middle of a quiet, suburban residential area.

The problem, as area neighbours and Ancaster Coun. Lloyd Ferguson discovered, is the cannabis outlet has met all the criteria to locate in the small plaza since the property is zoned commercial. The application is now before the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, which makes the final decision, but is on hold because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Yet councillors can still find themselves stymied by the cannabis industry. Case in point is the proposal by Cannabis Roll Inc. to create a cannabis retail outlet at 11 Hatton Dr. near Fiddler’s Green Road and Highway 403 that had previously housed a Your Choice Variety store almost in the middle of a quiet, suburban residential area.

The problem, as area neighbours and Ancaster Coun. Lloyd Ferguson discovered, is the cannabis outlet has met all the criteria to locate in the small plaza since the property is zoned commercial. The application is now before the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, which makes the final decision, but is on hold because of the coronavirus pandemic.

When Hamilton agreed to allow legal, private pot shops within its boundaries, councillors may not have examined the fine print. Municipalities have limited authority to prevent or discourage pot shops from opening within the city’s zoning laws.

Proposed store complies with zoning rules

For instance, Hamilton can’t prevent the proposed new Ancaster shop from opening, since it has met all the planning regulations as established by the province. The Alcohol and Gaming Commission states that it will only consider issues involving protecting public health and safety, protecting youth and preventing illicit activities in relation to cannabis when considering an application.

The province’s only planning criteria for cannabis stores is they have to be 150 metres away from schools and daycare centres. Yet the proposed Ancaster location has three schools within walking distance.

The Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board stated in a letter sent to council in January 2019 that the province’s 150-metre limit between retail sites and schools could “negatively impact” them.

During a May 2020 council meeting Mountain Coun. Tom Jackson, who opposed allowing pot shops in the city, couldn’t help but provide an “I told you so” moment to his colleagues. He said at the time that the city would have an uphill battle stopping cannabis outlets from locating into identified locations.

“This is one I could almost predict down the road,” said Jackson. “This is the price we are paying.”

Hamilton tried to take back some control over citizen complaints about cannabis grow operations. It approved a revised bylaw to enforce odour and lighting complaints against non-licensed grow operations. (Since 2001 Health Canada has recognized a person’s right to grow cannabis for personal medical use.)

A loophole in federal legislation meant that Health Canada wouldn’t enforce odour, dust and other local complaints. However, it stated that the municipal government “could fill the void if a senior level of government wasn’t regulating an area.” Under the Municipal Act, cities and towns can regulate noise, dust and odour.

Bylaw only applies to unlicensed grow ops

But the city’s bylaw is only limited in its use. It can only be enforced against unlicensed grow operations. Because provincial legislation designated licensed cannabis grow operations as food crops, the municipality can’t enforce any odour, lighting or other complaints.

It’s another example of jurisdictional confusion and overlap that has left municipalities feeling helpless in the wake of the cannabis legalization free-for-all. And the conflict between municipalities and the province could increase once the province moves forward by allow additional private retail stores.

Many stores planned, few have opened

Prior to the coronavirus pandemic in March, Ontario was expected to start issuing store licenses at the rate of about 20 a month starting in April 2020. The goal, said the province, was 1,000 stores. There are still fewer than 30 stores actually open.

There are over 30 cannabis applications across Hamilton, from private retailers waiting to be approved by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission.

Financial benefits

For allowing pot shops within its midst, Hamilton received $574,000 from the province to cover policing costs. The city is expected to receive nearly $600,000 in 2020, part of a $40-million Cannabis Legalization Implementation Fund that was spread out over two years. Municipalities that prevent legal pot shops from operating in their communities receive about $5,000 from the fund.

In the years to come Hamilton is projected to receive a portion of the federal government’s excise tax on cannabis products. The federal government, under an agreement, will share half of any federal excise tax collected from the product over $120 million with provincial governments. Ontario is expected to give a portion of that money to host cities.

Where's the money?

Despite the potential for a revenue windfall that advocates have been trumpeting about by legalizing marijuana, there's limited evidence that municipalities are seeing that pot of money. Granted, it has only been 18 months since Hamilton allowed legal pot shops and the coronavirus pandemic has hindered the expansion of cannabis retailers.

In 2014, Colorado launched what was then considered a controversial experience, becoming the first U.S. state to legalize recreational cannabis. Five years later, the state surpassed $1 billion in total cannabis-related revenue, with people buying on average about $280 worth of cannabis per year. Much of the legal marijuana market revenue, accounting about 3 per cent of its $30 billion budget, goes towards health care, education, literacy services and drug prevention programs.

But in California, cannabis legalization has been a burnout. Cannabis consumers can’t buy pot in 75 per cent of the state’s city and counties, while high taxes are impeding legal growth and allowing the black market to expand.

British Columbia has seen record tax revenue from cannabis products, soaring to $2.5 million in December 2019, but it is still far below the estimated total revenue the province had been expecting. Over the next three years the province is expected to collect $68 million, rather than the $200 million officials projected.

Projected industry growth

A 2019 report Cannabis in the U.S. Economy, by New Frontier, states that full federal legalization has the potential to create $130 billion in federal tax revenue and 1 million new jobs by 2025.

Mayor Fred Eisenberger, who campaigned in 2018 to allow legal pot shops in the city, argued cannabis is a popular product that Hamiltonians are already consuming. By allowing legal dispensaries the public will now know cannabis and other marijuana-related products are safe, said Eisenberger, who sold off shares he owned in a marijuana grow company.

His argument received a boost after Mississauga Mayor Bonnie Crombie decided to reconsider the city’s decision to oppose legal pot shops within its borders. She was startled by the high number of unauthorized cannabis businesses in the city. Mississauga was one of 76 municipalities in Ontario that opted out of retail cannabis.

Yet, Oakville decided in March that it will continue to opt out of the opportunity to allow privately operated cannabis stores. It will review the decision in 2021.

Expectations fall short

Since legalization, government officials are learning marijuana isn’t the cash crop that had been expected, with cannabis excise tax revenues arriving at about half what was expected.

The first year cannabis was legalized — 2018-2019 — the federal government took in $18 million, but had expected $35 million. In 2020, the government expected it would bring in $100 million, but it is projecting about $66 million. So far up to March 2020, Canada has received $32 million from the excise duty, which still shows a steady growth in cannabis sales even during the pandemic.

Expectations are the tax will rise to $135 million in 2021 and by 2023 it will hit $220 million.

Impact of illegal weed

Statistics Canada has been tracking cannabis prices since before legalization and has found that so far illegal weed is falling in price to compete with legal shops. There is a $4 per gram gap in prices with legal cannabis selling for about $10 per gram and illegal products selling closer to $6.

As previously reported by Hamilton Community News, the introduction of legal cannabis has yet to wipe out the illegal cannabis market. In 2019, Statistics Canada found that 42 per cent of cannabis consumers purchased at least some of their product from illegal sources.

Reason for optimism

There is still reason for optimism that after the pandemic has subsided that cannabis will continue to grow in popularity. Statistics Canada has already revealed that legal sales of dry cannabis was over five times higher in July 2019 than July 2018, while sales of cannabis oil doubled over the same period.

The cannabis market in Hamilton and for the rest of Canada is still up in the air even after the introduction of legal cannabis. Critics have charged that it was a conflict to have Health Canada oversee the roll out of cannabis while adhering to its guiding principles to health and safety at the same time focusing on eliminating the cannabis black market.

As soon as Canada legalized cannabis, there was an almost immediate cannabis shortage in the legal shops, and the quality of the cannabis and high prices forced potential users to continue using the black market.

In Ontario, there were accusations of unfairness on how the lottery system was used to grant licenses to operators.

There also continues to be griping from municipal councillors about the overlapping and confusing regulations of cannabis enforcement that prevents municipalities from being able to properly locate cannabis stores or deal with complaints against licensed commercial cannabis grow operations, leaving the duties to provincial regulators which are haphazard at best. The federal government has essentially washed its hands of any type of enforcement — except at the border — leaving the details to municipalities.

And how those expected additional tax revenues from cannabis will be spent still remains unanswered. One of the priorities to legalize cannabis was to wipe out the black market, with a secondary purpose of raising needed revenue.

In Ontario the black market continues to thrive, while at the same time despite rising sales the Ontario Cannabis Retail Corporation lost $42 million in 2018-2019. The provincial government blamed high start-up costs for the financial loss.
 
Cannabis researchers say they’re still facing restrictions two years after legalization — and that could hurt public health
Image
BY SAM RICHES

There’s a world of mystery inside those frosty hairs that coat your cannabis. They are called trichomes, and they grow on lichens, algae, and various plants around the world. The small, mushroom-shaped fibres are also a source of THC and CBD-forming metabolites and the terpenes that give cannabis its unique fragrance.

Researchers from the University of British Columbia revealed the structures and chemical outputs of glandular trichomes for the first time in a study published in The Plant Journal in 2019. It’s the type of early days research that deepens our understanding of the plant and can be built upon for further studies. It is also the type of work that is sorely needed in Canada, cannabis researchers say.

“Every question that gets answered only opens up 10 or 20 new questions,” says Sam Livingston, the lead author of the study and a PhD candidate in UBC’s botany program.

From developing a scientific understanding of the plant, to its impact on heart health, pregnancy, and diabetes, there are still more questions than answers when it comes to cannabis. As we approach the two-year anniversary of legalization, restrictions around research continue to make it difficult to find answers. Researchers warn that those restrictions, and the ensuing gaps in knowledge, could lead to bad policy, negatively impact consumers and slow Canada’s opportunity to become a global leader on cannabis science.

Bogged down by permit backlogs

Even post-legalization, researchers still require a permit to study the plant. Livingston says it’s easier to grow cannabis in your backyard than it is to conduct research on it in a lab.

Since 2018, researchers and scientists have complained that their work is hindered, stalled, and sometimes, not even started due to the Health Canada permit process. Each application outlines details such as the nature of the research facility and the scope of the work, to the site personnel, record-keeping and security.

“They are intimately aware of every process that happens from the ground up in terms of knowing what the facility is going to look like, who is going to be entering the premises and who is going to have the specific lock combination for the specific lock on the specific growth chamber,” Livingston says.

Health Canada says it has taken steps in recent months to address those concerns, including adding additional members to the application review team and streamlining some of the paperwork.

“Since the improvements that have been implemented in July 2019, Health Canada has issued more than 150 new research licences and reduced the number of applications in (the) queue by more than 30 per cent,” a Health Canada spokesperson told The GrowthOp.

Livingston says those changes have helped, but more will be needed for Canada to take advantage of the global opportunity.

In a blog published by Policy Options last November, researchers listed six actionable steps to improve the landscape of cannabis research. It calls for an embrace of scientific cannabis research and says that funding should flow equally for research that seeks to examine the plant’s therapeutic potential as well as research into its harms.

“There really are so many things that we don’t understand about the plant. And I think as we continue to learn more, it’s going to be interesting to see what sort of response Health Canada has in terms of being able to open up the procedures for being able to get those licences through and being able to perform the research that is so desperately needed,” Livingston says.

Private vs Public

Cannabis research in Canada is also divided between two worlds, the public and academic and the private and corporately funded. In recent years, Livingston says there has been a proliferation of private research behind closed doors, which isn’t shared the same way through academic cannabis research networks.

Brishna Kamal, co-founder of Whistler Therapeutics, has worked on private research and in partnerships with universities. She says she is sympathetic to the barriers faced by academic researchers.

“The two research licences I have right now, between two universities, we’ve done all the paperwork ourselves for them,” she says. “It’s been myself and my quality assurance individual. So we provide that support to universities as well, when we work on collaborative projects with them. But it is quite frustrating for an academic. I’ve been there myself as an academic to go through all the regulatory hurdles to be able to carry out simple, simple projects.”

Kamal is currently working on a research project, alongside a UBC professor, that has been in the queue for the past four months. She says she heard back from one regulatory affairs specialist early on, stating that he was going to meet with his supervisors to see if a full clinical trial application was required, but since then, it’s been crickets. “I called him yesterday again, no response,” she says. “In my opinion, it seems like there’s a lot going on at the Health Canada licensing office. And they’re trying to make the research go a little bit more smoothly, but I think they’re swamped.”

Kamal, like many other Canadian cannabis researchers, has begun working with clients in other countries, like Germany, Spain and New Zealand, where the processes, though still detailed and laborious, are not always so onerous.

“There are more funds abroad for me and for my company,” she says. “And that means less knowledge and less innovation is going to come about in Canada and we’re going to lose as a country. We might have been the first to legalize, but we’re definitely not the first to take research as a priority.”

Increasing the amount of funding that supports drug research could help alleviate that problem, she says, and could provide more insight into critical areas, such as the impact of cannabis on youth.

“Literally, Health Canada’s doing a population study right now,” she says. “That’s how I view legalization.”

Other countries that are considering loosening their pot laws, like Australia, have decided to take a different approach and have placed a greater emphasis on research. Canada could benefit from doing the same thing, Kamal says, however belatedly.

“We should have found out more about the plant before we actually legalized it,” Kamal says. “That’s what Australia is trying to do right now. When the whole cannabis space erupted in Australia, they allocated about $40 million for research. Health Canada allocated $4 million when it became legal. And they dedicated it to youth education and preventing use of cannabis. I get that we need to protect the youth. But can we find out why we’re protecting the youth first?”

The GrowthOp
 
Six Nations council, cannabis commission clash with community members who want to sell
Community-driven cannabis coalition calls statement a 'slap in the face'

The Six Nations of the Grand River elected council and the cannabis commission have issued a terse reminder to residents that anyone involved in illegal cannabis sales risks criminal and civil liability.

"More importantly, [they are] endangering the health and safety of individuals in our community," reads a joint statement shared Tuesday.

The statement follows a June announcement from an organization called the Six Nations People's Cannabis Coalition (SNPCC) that several groups were planning to start supplying and selling cannabis as of July 1, explained Nahnda Garlow.

Garlow is the chair of the Six Nations Cannabis Commission, which was created in 2019 to set up a cannabis regime on the reserve that would ensure the funds raised would benefit the community, not the federal or provincial government.

It's also focused on making sure the cannabis industry on Six Nations produces safe products, follows environmental protections and exists without a monopoly, Garlow added.

The commission is currently working on a licensing and regulatory process. In the meantime, a moratorium on all cannabis activity is in place.




But not everyone agrees with the moratorium, or the commission's approach.

Mike Davis is a Six Nations member and part of the SNPCC, which he described as a "community-driven cannabis movement."

The group hosts weekly meetings and Davis says he's aware of 38 people interested in opening up cannabis retail locations despite the ban.
He called the joint statement a "slap in the face."

"They don't care about health and safety. It's just money, that's all they care about," Davis added, pointing to an eight per cent gross sales tax that must go back to the elected council.

He maintained the SNPCC is instead motivated by safety and transparency, saying it too wants to keep cannabis away from kids and one of its first priorities is setting up a cannabis testing facility to weed out contaminates like mould and pesticides.

"For them to just call us illicit and [say] we're not even trying to hold up health and safety standards, that's just a disregard for everything we've tried to do from the beginning."

Garlow said the commission has been engaging with the SNPCC since February and have had some "positive conversations," but said the discussions took a turn when they determined there wasn't a way to set up an interim cannabis industry.

"We recognize as a commission that not everybody is going to see eye to eye on this," she added. "The concern is that taking action to do something that is illegal … kind of contradicts that idea that you're there to uphold health and safety for the community."

The chair referenced consultations with paramedics and police who raised concerns about "contaminated cannabis, illicit produce that contained things like fentanyl that did lead to tragic consequences."

The commission is working to ensure the cannabis standards on Six Nations are as good, or better, than those of Health Canada, she said. It's aiming to start accepting applications for cannabis production by November.

"We don't want anyone to consume cannabis produced on Six Nations and get sick," said Garlow. "It's a matter of protecting businesses as well as consumers … and the reputation of the community."
 
Clashes raise thorny question: How (or if) to regulate First Nations pot shops

ipperwash-e1592697064374.png

Smoke rises from the remains of a shop on Kettle and Stony Point First Nation Friday, in this screenshot from a video posted to Facebook by a member of the First Nation. Tensions flared as members of the First Nation moved to evict operators at smoke and cannabis shops on former Camp Ipperwash land.



Separate disputes over illegal pot shops near Southwestern Ontario Indigenous communities weeks apart highlight the complexities surrounding how First Nations cannabis stores ought to be regulated, if at all.

On June 4, Middlesex OPP raided six illegal pot shops on the outskirts of Oneida of the Thames First Nation. Ten people were later arrested.

Then on June 19, a tense situation ignited at Ipperwash Provincial Park, resulting in one illegal pot shop being burned down, another damaged, and at least one person arrested.

Sgt. Murray Bressette, with Anishinabek police in Kettle and Stony Point, said the incidents in Ipperwash and Middlesex Centre are unrelated.

He described the Ipperwash situation as an “internal issue between members of Kettle and Stony Point” and said mediation is ongoing.

While the events are entirely unrelated, they underscore a potentially simmering issue of marijuana regulation in Indigenous communities, and the complexities and confusions tied to the nuanced subject.

Tom Bressette, former Chief of Kettle and Stony Point, said he doesn’t support shops run illegally.

“The best solution is for the band council to license this thing like they do everything else and make people pay tax and negotiate with the government what they’re looking for,” said Bressette. “Stop wasting taxpayer money on making police shut down something illegal.”

Many unregulated pot shops have been a mainstay on reserves and settlements for years and have gone widely uncontested by provincial police.

Bressette said their presence should be no surprise, with many community members looking to pot and smoke shops as a means to get by.

“There’s a demand for employment opportunities, and it’s been demonstrated by those that have tried everything to find a job and feed their family, and they can’t do it,” he said. “There’s no other income, so what are they going to do?”

He said it’s difficult for people on reserves to break the cycle of systemic poverty.

“That’s what it’s like to be Anishinaabe,” he said. “It’s to be brought up in a lesser class and know you aren’t getting anywhere else.”

But Bressette said the people who keep these shops in business are outsiders, drawn to Indigenous communities by lower prices. “They’re supporting illegal stuff.”

When the COVID-19 pandemic hit, many reserves barred outsiders as a public health measure, effectively cutting off business at the same time.

Bressette suggests governments invest more in Indigenous communities to support jobs and infrastructure to reduce the need for unregulated pot shops.

An email statement from the Attorney General’s Ministry acknowledged the complexities related to First Nations cannabis regulation.

In the province, cannabis retail operation licences and store authorizations are regulated and issued by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (AGCO). Applications for an on-reserve cannabis retail store require a band council resolution approving the proposed location.

“This will help prevent the further proliferation of illegal storefronts in First Nations, particularly within communities . . . interested in operating under the regulated framework on reserve,” said the ministry’s Brian Gray.

Ontario law gives the ministry flexibility to accommodate community-specific, on-reserve approaches to cannabis regulation, including factors such as minimum age, private retail and enforcement.

“The government will continue to engage with First Nations interested in developing their own approaches to cannabis to identify how the government can best support efforts by these communities,” Gray said.

Indigenous communities were not consulted when cannabis legalization was unfolding.

Jacob Taylor, a partner in Pontiac Group, an Indigenous venture building company that has helped communities develop business plans around cannabis, acknowledged there’s a variety of regulatory approaches happening in Ontario.

He said the first step to ironing out the “huge jurisdictional grey zone” is better communication.

“It’s confusion among sovereignty and the boundaries of sovereignty and how that interplays with vague languages of treaties,” Taylor said. “There are long histories with colonization and prevalence of substance use, so it’s a difficult subject to talk about.”

The number of players involved — federal and provincial government agencies, Indigenous leaders at the Ontario chief level and local councils — makes the conversation more challenging.

Taylor said local chiefs and councils might oppose current unregulated or illegal pot shops on their territory yo avoid any possible criminal liability.

One solution could be for Indigenous communities to use the upcoming farm-gate clause, which will allow cannabis cultivators to have on-site stores.

“Go down the Health Canada path . . . and sell directly from Health Canada cultivation, kind of making everyone happy in that scenario,” Taylor said. “First Nations don’t have to be in any way regulated by Ontario, and then can fruitfully participate in this industry.”

But current costs of meeting Health Canada cultivation standards would price out most Indigenous communities, he added. “It’s very hard for a small First Nations government to even dream of taking on.”

It’s these factors that combine to make the matter even more complex. But if there is one thing most parties seem to agree on, it’s that a one-size-fits-all approach won’t work.

“In every part of Canada, you’ve got the hodgepodge of it all,” Taylor said. “We’re all First Nations, but everyone is doing their own thing in many different programming areas. There are huge different stances.”
 
Circle J? Why You Soon Might Be Able to Buy Weed at Circle K

The partnering of Circle K and pot firm Fire & Flower suggests the convenience store might become the ultimate one-stop pot shop.

Circle K is — and always has been — the primo go-to for weed-related necessities on the order of lighters, rolling papers, and (of course) munchies. But now, some analysts reportedly foresee the K becoming a one-stop shop for everything a pothead might need — including weed.

According to Green Market Report, the strategic investment partnership between cannabis firm Fire & Flower and Alimentation Couche-Tarde (Circle K’s parent company) indicates that the convenience store giant might be warming to the idea of carrying weed.

The speculation has heated up as Fire & Flower just announced it will open two cannabis retail outlets in Alberta, Canada. The shops will be directly adjacent to Circle K stores in Calgary and Grande Prairie.

The co-location strategy aims to combine Circle K’s foot traffic and ubiquitous physical presence with Fire & Flower’s digital and online services. “We believe that combining convenient pickup locations with digital engagement offered by the Hifyre platform and Spark Perks program presents our customers with a differentiated value proposition in an increasingly competitive cannabis retail market,” said Trevor Fencott, Fire & Flower CEO.

Both companies foresee the program extending throughout Canada and going international. Alimentation Couche-Tarde, which invested $380 million in 2019 for a controlling interest in Fire & Flower, has reportedly “set its sights on the global expansion as new cannabis markets emerge.”

Questions about the impact of selling cannabis in convenience stores, similar to other age-restricted products such as alcohol and tobacco, continue to rise. Many in the industry reportedly worry that such a change might eliminate dispensaries and diminish their opportunities to reach consumers, pointing out how only a few hugely corporate beer brands actually make it to the shelves of stores like Circle K.

Could “craft weed” outlets, then, be another aspect of the changing market? Let’s all just keep smoking and find out.
 
Ontario's private pot shops upset about giving up delivery and curbside pickup

TORONTO — Ontario's private cannabis stores will have to give up offering delivery and curbside pickup next week — and they're not happy about it.

The stores were allowed to start offering both services in April under a temporary emergency order the Ontario government issued during the COVID-19 pandemic.

While the province is working on extending its state of emergency until July 24, orders that allowed delivery and curbside pickup won't continue.

"Thirty per cent of my business is curbside, so it certainly will impact us in a negative way," said Helene Vassos, the owner of two Canvas Cannabis stores in the Danforth and Mount Dennis neighbourhoods of Toronto.

Vassos didn't offer delivery, but did start contactless, curbside pickup and said it is popular with customers.

"I just feel that it's prematurely being taken away," said Vassos.

She and other private cannabis store owners wish there was more of an opportunity to share with the government just how important the new services have been to an industry that has faced mass layoffs, facility closure and writedowns this year.

Delivery and curbside service "supported cannabis retailers during an unprecedented economic downturn and ensured consumers could access legal and safe recreational cannabis while adhering to public health guidance during the pandemic," Ministry of Finance spokeswoman Emily Hogeveen told The Canadian Press in an email.

In place of curbside pickup and delivery, cannabis retail stores can reopen with measures that enable physical distancing, such as limiting the number of customers in a store at any one time and booking appointments, she said.

Vassos, however, worries that it won't be easy to turn curbside shoppers into in-store customers, especially because Canvas saw the offering generate so much business.

"I can only assume that we will lose a certain percentage of our business because of that," she said.

Daniel Safayeni, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce's director of policy and co-chairman of its Ontario Cannabis Policy Council, is also not a fan of the services ending because he said they allowed the private sector to compete against the illicit market, which has long offered cheaper prices and more convenience.

The average price of legal cannabis rose to $10.30 per gram in the period between October and December 2019 from $9.69 per gram the year before, Statistics Canada said in January.

During that same period, the average price of illegal cannabis fell to $5.73 per gram from $6.44 per gram a year earlier.

"At a time where the illegal sector accounts for over 80 per cent of cannabis sales in the province, today’s decision will further reduce consumer access to legal cannabis," Safayeni said in a statement.

"Successfully displacing the illicit market will require a fair and competitive legal market whereby recreational cannabis stores are granted the same privileges any other retailer is entitled to, including e-commerce."

Mimi Lam, the owner of a Superette pot shop in Ottawa that offered both curbside pickup and delivery during the pandemic, agreed.

Delivery, she said in an email, levels the playing field between legal and illegal cannabis operations.

Customers, who like to have options, embraced the service, so eliminating it makes little sense, she added.

"To take that away, after we have proven the ability to do it effectively and after customers have gotten used to purchasing this way is setting this industry back and the progress we have made so far."
 
Canadian Hospitals Launch Medical Cannabis Trial

University Health Network, a hospital network in Toronto, Canada, has launched its first clinical trial to assess the effectiveness of medical cannabis.
Conducted over six months, the study hopes to include 2,000 patients from across Canada who live with chronic pain, insomnia, anxiety, and depression.

Taking the questionnaire
Dubbed the Medical Cannabis Real-World Evidence (MC-RWE) clinical trial, the study will provide patients with a range of tested products, including edibles and extracts, to treat their conditions with. Symptom changes will be tracked through four standard questionnaires, which participants will receive at least $5 (US $3.68) for completing.
Recreational cannabis consumers and those already registered with the trial’s sponsor, Medical Cannabis by Shoppers, are excluded from becoming participants.
“The challenge with the medical use of cannabis is that physicians and patients are unsure of the quality of products being consumed,” Dr Hance Clarke, director of pain services at Toronto General Hospital and director of the new trial, said in a statement.
“For the first time we will have a national repository of data that can provide answers about the effectiveness of these products, to test their claims.”

Cannabis on trial
While the evidence base for medical cannabis still has some gaps, there are areas of treatment that have been significantly researched.
One of the most comprehensive scientific reviews to ever assess medical cannabis’ efficacy concluded in 2017 that there was enough evidence to support treatment in three areas: to relieve chronic pain, to alleviate nausea from chemotherapy, and to reduce spasms from multiple sclerosis.
But more recent reviews haven’t been as kind to cannabis as a treatment for certain mental health conditions.
A major review published in the Lancet Psychiatry last year – which described itself as the “most comprehensive review of the evidence to date” – found little evidence to support medicinal cannabis or pharmaceutical CBD’s use to relieve depression and anxiety.
Any individual or physician wishing to take part in the MC-RWE trial can learn more here.
 
Alberta judge determines cannabis grower's rights were violated, but refuses to stay charges

Shaun Charles Howell’s unlicensed Innisfail cannabis grow was busted by the RCMP in March 2017. He was charged with unlawfully producing cannabis and possession of over three kilograms of cannabis for the purpose of trafficking.

In addition to himself, Howell was providing cannabis to a few patients, including a disabled homeless man to whom he provided cannabis products at no cost and his daughter who suffers from epilepsy.

The judge agreed that the man’s constitutional rights had been violated under previous, pre-legalization drug legislation. But his bid to have the charges stayed was denied.

Howell’s entire yield was seized, including 739 cannabis plants, 54 kilograms of freshly-harvested weed, and just under three kilograms of dried flower, as well as a variety of equipment for cultivation and manufacturing extractions and concentrates.

Howell filed a constitutional challenge in 2019 over the seizure of his plants and equipment, insisting that the restriction on concentrates under the Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Act (ACMPR), which predates federal legalization, was incongruent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

He noted that the ACMPR did not provide reasonable access to necessary medication and thus forcing patients to undergo financial hardship, risk criminal prosecution, or experience further health issues as a result of limited availability — and also robbed patients of their right to make their own choices regarding medical treatment options.

Although Red Deer Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Robert Graesser agreed that Howell’s rights were violated due to the constraints on concentrates under the ACMPR, the judge refused to stay the charges.

Justice Graesser acknowledged that Howell had attempted to operate legitimately by trying to obtain a grow licence several times and had a pending application at the time of his arrest. He believed Howell had made an attempt “in good faith” to “satisfy the onerous Health Canada requirements” in place at the time.

Graessner also noted that Howell had not ultimately acquired the necessary licences, deciding that the public interest outweighed the benefits of staying Howell’s charges.

Howell will return to court in October 2020.
 
Pandemic brings pot shops, bike couriers together — but what happens when it ends?


Only OCS permitted to provide home delivery once emergency order is lifted

When the COVID-19 pandemic hit, Joe Glynn wasn't sure how he'd get his pot into his customers' hands.

Glynn, the general manager of Ottawa cannabis shop Stash & Co., found the industry's new home delivery model posed huge challenges, from keeping track of orders to dispatching staff.

So he turned to another group of workers facing economic uncertainty: bike couriers who suddenly found themselves with nothing to deliver.

Glynn estimates in the last four months, the team of couriers he's hired has made more than 9,000 deliveries, accounting for a boost in sales of about 25 per cent.

"We get the order, within five minutes it's processed and ready to go and — in the downtown core — it's at [customers' homes] in about 20 to 30 minutes," said Glynn.

'The best job'
Ontario's emergency measures, currently in place until at least July 29, give private cannabis retailers permission to deliver directly to their customers — something they'd never been able to do before.

That's provided a small boost to the bike courier business, which was decimated locally when the pandemic hit, said Brandon Walsh of Ottawa's Veloz Courier.

"I'd say 90 per cent of them are currently laid off," he said. "No one has a job to go back to after this."

Walsh's band of couriers, all now hired by Stash & Co. — the emergency measures require them to be employees, not subcontractors — has now grown to a crew of 19. They have insurance, benefits and vacation pay, things most bike couriers never see.

"It's awesome," said Walsh. "That's like, almost the best thing that's happened. It's like the best job — [it] kind of sucks the pandemic created it, but it's definitely the best job that we've all had."

Uncertainty ahead
When Ontario's state of emergency eventually comes to an end, however, it could mean the end for what's become a dream job for Walsh's team.

Unless the rules are changed, the provincially owned Ontario Cannabis Store (OCS) will once again become the only supplier allowed to provide home deliveries.

"It doesn't make any sense to me," said Walsh, some of whose customers told CBC News they're anxious about going back inside stores to buy cannabis.

"I think we're all going to have to go on CERB or something, because there's no jobs to go back to. None of our companies will be hiring us back in the foreseeable future."


Ontario's Ministry of the Attorney General has said the home delivery exemption is intended to allow retailers to compete with the illicit market during the emergency declaration.

One year after legalization, Statistics Canada found only 29 per cent of Canadians were buying legal cannabis.

"As part of the government's framework for reopening our province, cannabis retail stores can reopen with measures in place that can enable physical distancing," wrote ministry spokesperson Brian Gray in an email to CBC. "The government will continue to consider how best to support the sector as the cannabis market in Ontario continues to grow and mature."

Glynn said it would be "disappointing" if OCS once again become the only option for home delivery, especially for cannabis retailers whose sales are still far below pre-COVID-19 levels.

"I finally had a way to compete: [in] 20 minutes, I was beating the black market to customers' houses and [doing it] with a safe, legal product," he said.
 
Ontario won't allow cannabis cafes — for now — as health officials raise concerns

Consultation documents show health officials have serious concerns

There's a sharp divide between health officials and business groups on whether or not the Ford government should allow cannabis lounges and cafes, and broaden the number of places pot can be sold.

CBC Toronto obtained the results of the government's consultation — conducted earlier this year before COVID-19 forced the province to declare a state of emergency — through a freedom of information request. You can read all 850 pages of feedback at the bottom of this story.

The province is considering two major changes to the current cannabis landscape:

  • Whether or not it should allow the sale of cannabis for people to use in lounges and cafes.
  • And whether or not to allow special occasion permits (SOPs) for cannabis, potentially allowing for it to be sold at places like festivals.
But for now, the government isn't making any changes.

Jenessa Crognali, a spokesperson for Ontario's attorney general, issued an email statement saying: "No changes to the cannabis framework are expected at this time nor is there a current timeframe for any additional changes that may be informed by this feedback."

Crognali confirmed the government will consider the consultation results in the future.

Ford's government has stated its ultimate goal for cannabis is an open market, but at this point it continues to control all legal sales through the Ontario Cannabis Store, which has reported an uptick in online purchases during the pandemic.

However, allowing cannabis cafes — like those seen in places like Amsterdam — is something no Canadian province has done, and it's unclear how it would even work with the province's stated pledge not to change its Smoke-Free Ontario Act.

Ontario health, school officials criticize plan
The Ford government was told by local and regional medical officers of health across the province it should not allow cannabis lounges or make the drug easier to get than it is now.

The Durham Region Health Department, for example, is staunchly opposed. If the province goes ahead with the changes, it wants the power to pass bylaws to ban lounges from ever opening.

"From a public health approach, it becomes concerning when the legalization model changes to a private cannabis retail model with profit being the key driver for expanding business opportunities," the department stated in its filing.

The health experts' concern is simple: more access to cannabis will lead to more cannabis-related harm.

That includes issues like impaired driving, public intoxication and other health risks. Multiple organizations, including Ontario Health (which subsumed Cancer Care Ontario), warn that more research on cannabis is needed before the public has a full picture of its risks.

Numerous people in public health also sounded the alarm about the potential mixing of cannabis and alcohol, which can lead to dangerous levels of intoxication.

School directors and boards also objected to the plan, warning loosening the regulations currently in place could lead to more youth using cannabis.

Businesses groups like the idea of an expanded market
However, business groups are lobbying hard on the other side. The Hamilton Chamber of Commerce, for example, told the government that "Ontario's legal cannabis market is not meeting its full potential."

The Ontario Chamber of Commerce echoed that, adding that in the near future more people will want to consume cannabis in public, social spaces, just like alcohol is consumed.

Niagara College, which has a commercial cannabis production program, said if the government doesn't allow lounges and put some strict rules in place, others will fill the void.

"Going in the other direction — NOT facilitating — one runs the risk of underground lounges and cafes proliferating in non-ideal or unsafe conditions," the college said in its submission.

Restaurants Canada, an association representing eateries ranging from coffee shops to caterers, introduced another wrinkle — the potential for unfair competition.

If cannabis is going to be served, said James Rilett, the organization's central region vice-president, it should happen in existing establishments, rather than starting new cannabis cafes.

"If you had a cannabis lounge through the [provincial cannabis] retailer, then obviously they'd start selling food products, they'd start selling coffee and teas, and, you know, all of the sudden we have a competitor that's operating with an advantage."

A mixed response from the public

Many voiced support for cannabis lounges, suggesting they could be a place to unwind — like bars, but for people who prefer weed to alcohol. Some asked why people can smoke in public, potentially around children, but not in private spaces around consenting adults.

There's also a suggestion it would be a better and safer way for people to be introduced to cannabis.

However, allowing lounges would likely require changing the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, which bans smoking and vaping in any enclosed workplace or public place, as well as on the patio of any bar or restaurant. From the outset, the government said it wouldn't change the act.

Those who wrote in against lounges suggest they'd be a slippery slope to letting people smoke tobacco in bars and restaurants, also citing concerns about the health of those working long shifts in the cafes.

Those opposed to increasing cannabis access at festivals said families and non-smokers who attend those events shouldn't be subjected to the smell and second-hand smoke.

Others sat in the middle ground. Their message to the government: regulate cannabis like you regulate tobacco.

OCS doing better with status quo
Ontario's legal cannabis rollout has faced criticism from day one, with many warning a lack of bricks-and-mortar stores has allowed the black market to flourish. The Ontario Cannabis Store (OCS) actually lost money during its first year of operation, but appears to be doing better now — particularly during the novel coronavirus pandemic.

Daffyd Roderick, the director of communications for the OCS, said it's now averaging between 29,000 and 30,000 orders per week.

"Each day of the week is different but we've been averaging 4,200 orders per day," Roderick said in an email. "That is above pre-COVID levels, which was around 2,500 per day."

To view the entire consultation results for yourself go to link in title and scroll to the bottom of the article.
 
Canadian Cannabis Mega Brands Sued for False Labeling, Potency

CALGARY, Alberta – A long list of Canadian cannabis product producers, including industry leaders like Cronos Group Inc. and Tilray Canada Ltd., have been named in a class action lawsuit that claims products were labeled with cannabinoid THC and CBD content levels much higher than what was actually contained in the product.

The suit was filed on June 16, at the Judicial Centre of Calgary.

A complete list of defendants in the suit includes: Aurora Cannabis Inc., Aurora Cannabis Enterprises Inc., AuroraCo., Aleafiaco, Aleafia Health Inc., Emblem Cannabis Corp., Hexo Corp., HexoCo, Cronos, Cronosco, Tilray, Organigram Holdings Inc., OrganigramCo, MediPharm Labs Corp., and MediPharmCo.

Lisa Marie Langevin is listed as plaintiff in the case. Langevin said she purchased Tilray cannabis oil product at a legal cannabis retailer in February 2020.

She used the product four times over a month, increasing dosage each time, and did not feel any psychoactive effect. Inexperienced with cannabis products, Langevin then consulted a biochemist friend and allowed him to try the product, which again produced no psychoactive effects.

The friend, Shaun Mesher, arranged for the product and its plastic container to be tested; results showed it contained only 46 percent of the level of THC that was indicated on the label. A second test of the same product then showed THC level at 79 percent of what was labeled.

At that point, Mesher tested six various cannabis products from different producers. Two of the products exceeded cannabinoid levels as labeled, while the other four were below what the label advertised.

Products ranged from 54 to 119 percent of levels indicated on their labels. Four out of six products listed in the claim are allegedly significantly outside the variability limit for ingredient content allowed by Health Canada, the governing agency for legal cannabis Canada.

The suit also asserts that plastic containers may have affected product potency. Some research has suggested plastic containers may leech potency from cannabis oil products.

Plaintiff’s attorney John Kingman Phillips said the suit has been brought to bring attention to a potentially hazardous situation for consumers, who cannot be assured of dosage levels or product effects.

The suit asks for $500 million (CAD) in damages for Canadians that purchased legal medical cannabis since June 16, 2010, as well as those who purchased legal recreational cannabis since October 17, 2018. Plaintiffs are seeking an additional $5 million in punitive damages, per named company.
 
Canadian researchers to develop first national database on effectiveness of medical cannabis

Canadian researchers are hoping to fill in the gaps regarding how effective medicinal marijuana is in treating adults with chronic pain, sleep, anxiety and depression issues as part of a new six-month study.

There’s been plenty of anecdotal evidence on what cannabis can do, but the idea is to flesh out the details and develop what is being touted as the first national database for medical cannabis products. “For the first time, we will have a national repository of data that can provide answers about the effectiveness of these products, to test their claims,” Dr. Hance Clarke, who is heading the study, according to the University Health Network (UHN).

That means researchers involved in the Medical Cannabis Real World Evidence study are on the hunt for at least 2,000 patients who have been prescribed medical weed for any of the aforementioned conditions.

“Patients using medical cannabis can experience a variety of effects depending on the strain and that variability is not accepted in the pharmaceutical industry,” says Dr. Clarke, director of pain services at Toronto General Hospital (TGH).

Participants will be able to select a wide variety of medical cannabis products — including milligrams of THC and CBD — each of which has been tested and verified to ensure batch consistency, notes the UHN, which includes TGH.

Using an online portal created by Canadian retail pharmacy chain, Shoppers Drug Mart, patients can access dried flower, oil extracts, edibles and topicals, and then report how a specific product addresses their specific symptoms.

“Our development of a blockchain secured initiative, with TruTrace Technologies Inc., has now been integrated into an operational portal that will provide products with an immutable digital identity, that can capture everything from detailed chemistry down to its DNA,” Ken Weisbrod, vice president of business development/cannabis strategy for Shoppers, says in a statement.

Consistency is crucial to getting a handle on effects, Dr. Clarke suggests. “The challenge with the medical use of cannabis is that physicians and patients are unsure of the quality of products being consumed,” he explains.

The expectation is that the study will offer “the same rigour around medical cannabis that is demanded of any other pharmaceutical product,” notes the UHN statement.

While medical cannabis users have long touted its efficacy in treating chronic plain, “we need the evidence to help us in prescribing the appropriate validated product, at the right dose, for the right patient,” Dr. Clarke adds, something that will offer patients and physicians alike greater confidence in the plant.

A number of cannabis companies and licensed producers have announced their participation in the study, including The Valens Company, Radient Technologies and WeedMD, all of which will make select products available.
“To be able to participate in this real-world study and have the opportunity to understand how our products could be used as a treatment is an exciting step in the right direction for us,” says Tyler Robson, CEO of Valens, which will have a line of THC and CBD oils available as part of the study.

“Providing patients and medical professionals with trusted products that deliver repeatable results is a crucial step in having cannabis incorporated into medical treatments,” adds Denis Taschuk, CEO of Radient Technologies, which is providing three oral spray formulations to the study.

“Recognizing the importance of strain validation as cannabis products advance through Canada’s medical and pharmaceutical channels is paramount for building trust and accountability in our industry,” says Angelo Tsebelis, CEO of WeedMD.

“To be able to participate in this real-world study and have the opportunity to understand how our products could be used as a treatment is an exciting step in the right direction for us,” says Tyler Robson, CEO of Valens, which will have a line of THC and CBD oils available as part of the study.

“Providing patients and medical professionals with trusted products that deliver repeatable results is a crucial step in having cannabis incorporated into medical treatments,” adds Denis Taschuk, CEO of Radient Technologies, which is providing three oral spray formulations to the study.

“Recognizing the importance of strain validation as cannabis products advance through Canada’s medical and pharmaceutical channels is paramount for building trust and accountability in our industry,” says Angelo Tsebelis, CEO of WeedMD.
 
Cannabis Canada: Ontario to take $180M economic hit from ending pot shop delivery, pickup services

Province to take $180M hit on ending pot delivery, pickup: Ontario Chamber of Commerce

Ontario is primed to take a steep economic hit after deciding to stop allowing privately-run cannabis stores to provide delivery and curbside pickup services to customers. The services, which end on July 29, will cause the province to miss out on about $180 million in economic activity, according to the Ontario Chamber of Commerce. That figure balloons to nearly $1 billion in losses if the additional 450 stores which are ready to open, but whose licence applications are pending approval are factored in. One retailer expects customers to revert back to the illicit market now that the convenience of delivery won't be available to them.

Organigram shares plunge after reporting $89.9M net loss in Q3

It was a tough quarter for New Brunswick's Organigram. The cannabis producer released its third-quarter results where revenue fell 27 per cent to $18 million, posting a net loss of $89.9 million. In an interview with BNN Bloomberg, Organigram CEO Greg Engel attributed the losses to nearly $24 million in inventory write-downs as well as $7.9 million in charges related to a reduced workforce. Engel said he expects the company to continue embracing the "large format" value offering, despite having to tweak the name of its "Trailer Park Buds" brand to avoid running afoul of Health Canada regulations. Shares of Organigram closed down 9.8 per cent on the Toronto Stock Exchange.

Canada legal pot sales rise 4.2% in May to $185.9M: StatsCan

Canada's cannabis retailers sold about $185.9 million in legal pot in May, according to Statistics Canada. Canada's legal recreational cannabis industry now operates at an annual run rate of about $2.23 billion. Retail sales rose by 4.2 per cent in May from April, while nine provinces and territories reported a monthly sales decline in April. P.E.I. led gains with a 32-per-cent improvement in sales. However, sales in Ontario fell 13 per cent between March to May. Eight Capital analyst Graeme Kreindler said in a note to clients that the three-month decline in Ontario was a possible sign that there's a slower recovery from the height of COVID-19 related shutdowns.

Meta Growth buys two cannabis outlets to add to growing nationwide presence

Meta Growth is adding two more stores to its Canada-wide cannabis retail operation. The company said it plans to acquire Bud & Sally, the first legal cannabis store to open in Waterloo, Ont., for $1.15 million in cash. The store opened in March and had achieved $131,965 in sales in the week ending July 11, the company said. Meta will also buy Bud & Sally’s franchise store in Kitchener for $1.4 million in cash and debt. Meta has 36 locations nationwide, according to its website.
 
Accommodating Medical Marijuana in the Workplace: An Appeal Court Speaks Out

Labour, Employment and Human Rights Bulletin | The HR Space

A Canadian appeal court has overturned a lower court ruling that an employer could refuse to hire a worker who used medically authorized cannabis at a construction project. The Court of Appeal of Newfoundland and Labrador recently decided in International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1620 v. Lower Churchill Transmission Construction Employers' Association Inc. that the earlier decisions were not "reasonable" because the arbitrator failed to accommodate the worker to the point of "undue hardship". In three separate judgements, the Court addressed undue hardship limits on the duty to accommodate a worker who uses medical marijuana in a safety-sensitive workplace.

The Facts
The facts determined by the arbitrator were not in dispute. The grievor was refused employment at a construction project where he would have been involved in electric tower construction. All positons were designated as safety sensitive. When the grievor attended his lawful pre-employment drug screening, he disclosed his medical authorization for cannabis. The grievor used cannabis daily for pain management. Valard Construction refused to hire the grievor and the union filed a grievance. The arbitrator determined that it would be an undue hardship for the company to accommodate the grievor because of the safety risk to the grievor and other workers on the job.

The Arbitrator's Decision
The arbitrator decided that the grievor's use of medically authorized cannabis created a risk of impairment on the construction project. The arbitrator also said that the employer's inability to measure and manage that risk of harm constitutes undue hardship for the employer.

The Court of Appeal's Decision
The Court of Appeal did not agree with the arbitrator.

Even though it was accepted that there was no scientific or medical standard of assessing whether the grievor was impaired, Justice Walsh of the Appeal Court decided that was not enough to establish accommodation. In order to discharge the onus to accommodate the grievor to the point of undue hardship, "… it was necessary for the employer to demonstrate that to assess the grievor for impairment by some other means on a daily or periodic basis would result in undue hardship". The Court said that just because there is no reliable standard does not lead necessarily mean "…there is no means by which to determine whether an employee, by reason of ingesting cannabis, would be incapable of performing a specific job, including a safety-sensitive job".

The Appeal Court provided no definitive guidance on what that means but did offer the following rhetorical questions:

  • Was a scientific or medical standard the only option? If so, why?
  • If alternate options were identified, why were they not implemented?
  • For example, was a functional assessment of the grievor before his shift considered? If rejected, why?
  • What discussions were had with the Union to identify and assess alternate options for determining whether the grievor was capable of safely performing the job despite his use of cannabis in the evening?
In a separate concurring, majority judgement, Justice Butler dismissed the express prohibition in the applicable Occupational Health and Safety law that prohibited a worker being at work while being impaired from their ability to work safely on the basis that the applicable human rights law "take precedence" over all other provincial laws. However, there was no explanation or consideration by Justice Butler why co-workers and supervisors should have their health and safety put at risk to accommodate a worker who was using cannabis and under its influence in the dangerous workplace.

What Should Employers Do?
Whether this Appeal Court decision stands, is appealed, or is re-litigated before an arbitrator, it should not be ignored. Although the duty to accommodate to the point of undue hardship is entrenched in Canadian arbitral and human rights jurisprudence, it continues to be challenging for employers to apply the duty in individual cases.

Immediate take-a-ways for employers include the following:

  • As medically authorized cannabis increases, self-disclosure policies and lawful testing are important to address for safety sensitive positions in Fitness for Duties policies.
  • Consultation and support from unions is always advisable in developing, training on and enforcing Fitness for Duties policies.
  • Before any employment related decisions are taken that adversely impact a worker, an employer must carefully conduct the accommodation analysis.
  • Individualized duty of accommodation assessment options should be considered and applied consistently with the employer's Occupational Health and Safety and Fitness for Duties policies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Sponsored by
VGoodiez 420EDC
Back
Top